Electrocardiographic ST-segment elevation: correct identification of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and non-AMI syndromes by emergency physicians.

OBJECTIVE To determine the emergency physician's (EP's) ability to identify the cause of ST-segment elevation (STE) in a hypothetical chest pain patient. METHODS Eleven electrocardiograms (ECGs) with STE were given to EPs; the patient in each instance was a 45-year-old male with a medical history of hypertension and diabetes mellitus with the chief complaint of chest pain. The EP was asked to determine the cause of the STE and, if due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), to decide whether thrombolytic therapy (TT) would be administered (the patient had no contraindication to such treatment). Rates of TT administration were determined; appropriate TT administration was defined as that occurring in an AMI patient, while inappropriate TT administration was defined as that in the non-AMI patient. RESULTS Four hundred fifty-eight EPs completed the questionnaire; levels of medical experience included the following: postgraduate year 2-3, 193 (42%); and attending, 265 (58%). The overall rate of correct interpretation of the study ECGs was 94.9% (4,782 correct interpretations out of 5,038 instances). Acute myocardial infarction with typical STE, ventricular paced rhythm, and right bundle branch block were never misinterpreted. The remaining conditions were misinterpreted with rates ranging between 9% (left bundle branch block, LBBB) and 72% (left ventricular aneurysm, LVA). The overall rate of appropriate thrombolytic agent administration was 83% (1,525 correct administrations out of 1,832 indicated administrations). The leading diagnosis for which thrombolytic agent was given inappropriately was LVA (28%), followed by benign early repolarization (23%), pericarditis (21%), and LBBB without electrocardiographic AMI (5%). Thrombolytic agent was appropriately given in all cases of AMI except when associated with atypical STE, where it was inappropriately withheld 67% of the time. CONCLUSIONS In this survey, EPs were asked whether they would give TT based on limited information (ECG). Certain syndromes with STE were frequently misdiagnosed. Emergency physician electrocardiographic education must focus on the proper identification of these syndromes so that TT may be appropriately utilized.

[1]  W. Brady,et al.  Errors in emergency physician interpretation of ST-segment elevation in emergency department chest pain patients. , 2000, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[2]  Robert Woolard,et al.  Missed Diagnoses of Acute Cardiac Ischemia in the Emergency Department , 2000 .

[3]  W. Brady,et al.  Benign early repolarization: electrocardiographic manifestations and differentiation from other ST segment elevation syndromes. , 1998, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[4]  Ric,et al.  Electrocardiographic Diagnosis of Evolving Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Presence of Left Bundle-Branch Block , 1996 .

[5]  R. Califf,et al.  Mortality Within 24 Hours of Thrombolysis for Myocardial Infarction: The Importance of Early Reperfusion , 1994, Circulation.

[6]  T. Henry,et al.  Impact of the electrocardiogram on the delivery of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. , 1994, The American journal of cardiology.

[7]  R. Califf,et al.  Minimizing the risk of inappropriately administering thrombolytic therapy (Thrombolysis and Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction [TAMI] study group). , 1993, The American journal of cardiology.

[8]  R B D'Agostino,et al.  Missed diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction in the emergency department: results from a multicenter study. , 1993, Annals of emergency medicine.

[9]  E. Topol,et al.  Selection of patients with acute myocardial infarction for thrombolytic therapy. , 1990, Annals of internal medicine.

[10]  J. Blankenship,et al.  Cardiovascular complications of thrombolytic therapy in patients with a mistaken diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. , 1989, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  L. Goldman,et al.  Candidates for thrombolysis among emergency room patients with acute chest pain. Potential true- and false-positive rates. , 1989, Annals of internal medicine.

[12]  A. Krivchenia DepartmentAbstractClinical characteristics and natural history of patients with acute myocardial infarction sent home from the emergency room: Lee TH, Rouan GW, Weisberg MC, et al Am J Cardiol 60:219–224 Aug 1987 , 1988 .

[13]  G W Rouan,et al.  Clinical characteristics and natural history of patients with acute myocardial infarction sent home from the emergency room. , 1987, The American journal of cardiology.

[14]  P. Kligfield,et al.  Relationship of prior myocardial infarction to false-positive electrocardiographic diagnosis of acute injury in patients with chest pain. , 1987, Archives of internal medicine.

[15]  R Roberts,et al.  Electrocardiographic and clinical criteria for recognition of acute myocardial infarction based on analysis of 3,697 patients. , 1983, The American journal of cardiology.

[16]  T. Aufderheide,et al.  Evaluation of ST segment elevation criteria for the prehospital electrocardiographic diagnosis fo acute myocardial infarction. , 1994, Annals of emergency medicine.

[17]  Frans Van de Werf,et al.  An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.